Posts Tagged ‘Qualified Disability trust’

Income Taxation of the Third-Party Special Needs Trust

MARCH 23, 2015 VOLUME 22 NUMBER 12

Last week we wrote about how to handle income tax returns for self-settled special needs trusts. Our simple message: such trusts will always be “grantor trusts”, an income tax term that means they do not pay a separate tax or even file a separate return.

This week we’re going to try to explain third-party trust taxation. Unfortunately, the rules are not as straightforward or as simple. But that doesn’t mean you won’t understand them.

First, a quick definition of terms. A “third-party” special needs trust is one established by the person owning funds for the benefit of someone else — usually someone who is receiving public benefits. The usual purpose of such a trust is to allow the beneficiary to receive some assistance without forcing them to give up their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Medicaid (in Arizona, AHCCCS or ALTCS) benefits.

To figure out what to do about income taxes on the trust Jack set up, we need to consider a couple of questions:

  • Did Jack retain some levels of control over the trust while he’s still living?

If, for instance, Jack has the power to revoke the trust, or he stays as trustee, or even if he receives the trust’s assets back if Melanie dies before him, even this third-party trust may be a “grantor trust.” If it is, though, the grantor will be Jack — and he will probably pay any tax due on all of the trust’s taxable income. The trust will not need to have a separate EIN (tax number) and even if it does the actual income will usually be reported on Jack’s personal income tax return. None of the rest of this newsletter will be relevant to Jack’s income tax return.

What kinds of control might Jack have to trigger this treatment? There are volumes of suggestions and commentary written about that question, and it is impossible to answer without having spent some time reviewing the trust, its funding sources the IRS’s “grantor trust rules” and Jack’s intentions when he set it up. Some of the kinds of control might have been intentional, while others might surprise Jack (or even the lawyer who helped him draft the trust).

  • Does the trust treat principal and income differently?

Sometimes a trust might say that its income is available to the beneficiary, but not the principal (though this kind of arrangement is less common today than it was a few decades ago). In such a case the taxation of interest and dividends might be different from capital gains.

  • Does the trust require distribution of all income?

Some trusts mandate that the current beneficiary must be given all the trust’s income. That’s very rare in the case of special needs trusts (since the whole point is usually to prevent the beneficiary from having guaranteed income) but sometimes a trust might have been written before the beneficiary’s disability was known, and inappropriate provisions might still be included. If the trust does require distribution of income, it will be what the tax code calls a “simple” trust and will have some slight income tax benefit. But it also will probably need to be modified (if it can be) to eliminate the mandatory distribution language.

  • Has the trust made actual distributions for the benefit of the beneficiary?

It is a bit of an oversimplification, but usually trust distributions result in the beneficiary paying the tax due. That is true even though the distribution is not of income. Let us explain (but not before warning you that we are going to simplify the numbers and effect somewhat):

Assume for a moment that Jack’s trust for Melanie is not a grantor trust. It holds $250,000 of mutual fund investments, and last year the investments returned $20,000 of taxable income. During that year, the trustee paid $10,000 to Melanie’s school for activity fees (so that Melanie could participate in extracurricular activities, go on field trips, and have the services of a tutor). The trustee also received a $4,900 fee for the year.

Now it is time for the trust to file its federal income tax return (the Form 1041). The trust will report $20,000 of income, a $100 personal (trust) exemption, a $4,900 deduction for administrative expenses and a $10,000 deduction for distributions to Melanie. The trust will also send a form K-1 to Melanie showing the $10,000 distribution; she will be liable for the tax on the income. The trust’s taxable income: $5,000.

But what if the trustee also paid $15,000 for Melanie and her full-time attendant to spend a week at a famous theme park? As before, the trust will have a $5,000 deduction for the personal exemption plus administrative expenses, but distributions for Melanie’s benefit totaled $25,000 — and the remaining taxable income was only $15,000. The trust will report a $15,000 distribution of income to Melanie, and send her a K-1 with that figure. She will be liable for income taxes on the $15,000 and the trust will have no income tax liability at all.

We can come up with infinite variations on this story. Perhaps the trustee purchased a vehicle for Melanie, and had it titled in her name. Maybe there were payments for wages for that attendant. Each variation might change the precise nature of the deductions, reporting and taxation, but the bottom line will be (approximately) the same in each case. Distributions to Melanie or for her benefit will shift the taxation from the trust level to her individual return.

  • Is Melanie’s trust a “Qualified Disability Trust”?

Yes, it is. We slipped the controlling fact into our narrative quite a while back. Melanie receives SSI. The same would be true if she was receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments. It could be true even if she was not receiving either benefit, but it probably would not be.

The effect of being a Qualified Disability Trust: instead of a $100 exemption (deduction) from trust income on the trust’s own tax return, the trust would get an exemption set at the current annual exemption amount for individuals. In 2015 that means the trust would get a $4,000 exemption — which could ultimately save the trust, or Melanie, the tax on that larger amount.

Some people resist understanding tax issues, thinking they are just too hard. We don’t agree. These concepts are manageable. We hope this helped.

More on Types of Trusts — Some of the Less Common Varieties

JANUARY 24, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 3
Last week we wrote about different types of trusts you might have encountered, and tried to explain some of the generic terms, differences among and between types, and likely settings where a given type of trust might be appropriate. We wrote about spendthrift trusts, bypass trusts, special needs trusts and the difference between revocable and irrevocable trusts. Let’s see if we can clear up some of the confusion over less-common trust names.

Crummey trusts. In 1962 Californian Dr. Clifford Crummey created a trust for the benefit of his four children, who then ranged in age from 11 to 22. He was trying to address a problem with estate tax law: he could give the money to his children outright (and then worry about how they spent it) or put it in trust for them to protect it (but then not get it out of his own estate for estate tax purposes). His clever idea: put the money in a trust for each kid’s benefit, but give that child the right to withdraw his “gift” from the trust until the end of the year. When they didn’t exercise that right (hey — the youngest was only 11, and even the oldest would understand that withdrawing his money might affect future gifts) it would lapse, and the gift would be completed but stay in trust.

The Internal Revenue Service thought it was a trick, and they argued that Dr. Crummey and his wife had not made gifts at all. The IRS lost that argument, and the “Crummey” trust was born, in a 1968 decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If you’d like to read the actual decision in Crummey v. Commissioner you may — but we warn you that it will be interesting to only a few diehards, most of them lawyers or accountants.

For nearly a half-century, then, the Crummey trust has been a primary tool in the estate planner’s toolbox. The trusts have morphed over time — now they are often used to purchase life insurance (and may be called Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts, or ILITs). The length of time for a beneficiary to withdraw the funds has been shortened in most cases — often to a month and sometimes even less. Some practitioners even give the withdrawal right to people other than the primary trust beneficiary. The Crummey trust in each case is an irrevocable trust intended to get a gift out of the donor’s estate for tax purposes but into a trust to control the use of the money after the gift is completed. With the present high gift tax exemption in federal law ($5 million for 2011 and 2012) the use of Crummey trusts will probably diminish appreciably.

Generation-Skipping trusts. In the simplest sense, a GST (practitioners love acronyms) is any trust that continues for more than one generation of beneficiaries. The “current” generation, if you will, might or might not have the right to receive income, or access to principal, of the trust — but it will continue until at least the death of that current generation representative.

GSTs are often constructed to skip multiple generations. The model for the maintenance of accumulated family wealth is usually the Rockefeller family — some of the trusts established by John D. Rockefeller before his 1937 death and valued collectively at over $1.4 billion at the time — are still chugging along for the benefit of his descendants.

Because of concerns about the accumulation of family wealth, and the avoidance of estate taxes in multiple generations by the use of such trusts, the federal government in 1976 introduced a new GST taxation scheme. More recent changes in the GST tax have driven the types, terms and use of GSTs. The GST tax is very high, but only applies (as of 2011 — the rules may change in two years or thereafter) to “skips” of over $5 million. Very elaborate GSTs are sometimes marketed as Dynasty trusts. One common problem in addition to tax issues: the common-law “Rule Against Perpetuities” may make it difficult to extend trusts for multiple generations. In Arizona it is now at least theoretically possible to extend a trust over more than 500 years without facing problems with the Rule. That is a sobering thought when you consider that 500 years ago the land that was to become Arizona was all but unknown to ancestors of the Europeans, Asians, Africans and even many Native Americans who live here now.

QTIP trusts. QTIP stands for “Qualified Terminable Interest Property.” Does that explain the trust type? Well, not quite.

In very general terms, a QTIP trust is probably designed for one narrow purpose. It permits a wealthy spouse to leave property for the benefit of a less-well-off surviving spouse without consuming the deceased spouse’s full estate tax exemption amount. In other words: if you were worth, say, $10 million dollars in 2009, when the estate tax exemption was at $3.5 million, you might have left $3.5 million to your adult children from your first marriage and most of the rest of your property in a QTIP trust for your second husband (or wife). That way your estate would pay no estate tax, and the tax would be due on the death of the surviving spouse. Since he (or she) had no property in our example, that means that his (or her) $3.5 million exemption would get used on your property first, and only the excess would be subject to taxation as it passed to your children from the first marriage.

As you can see, it is getting harder and harder to make a QTIP trust a good planning opportunity, except for extremely large estates with very high disparity in net worth between the spouses. But the QTIP trust isn’t dead yet — uncertainty about the federal estate tax, continued state estate taxes in some states (but not Arizona) and inertia preventing modification of older estate plans will all contribute to keeping the QTIP alive for a few more years, at least.

We don’t know about you, but we’re exhausted. Maybe we’ll tackle some more trust types on another day. Suggestions? Do you want to know about QDoTs (sometimes called QDTs or QDOTs)? QDisTs (Qualified Disability Trusts)? Cristofani Trusts? Just ask, and we’ll take a run at them.

Distinguishing Two Kinds of Special Needs Trusts

AUGUST 23, 2010 VOLUME 17 NUMBER 27
It really is unfortunate that we didn’t see this problem coming. Those of us who pioneered special needs trust planning back in the 1980s should have realized that we were setting up everyone (including ourselves) for confusion. We should have just given the two main kinds of special needs trusts different names. But we didn’t, and now we have to keep explaining.

There are two different kinds of special needs trusts, and the treatment and effect of any given trust will be very different depending on which kind of trust is involved in each case. Even that statement is misleading: there are actually about six or seven (depending on your definitions) kinds of special needs trusts — but they generally fall into one of two categories. Most (but not all) practitioners use the same language to describe the distinction: a given special needs trust is either a “self-settled” or a “third-party” trust.

Why is the distinction important? Because the rules surrounding the two kinds of trusts are very different. For example, a “self-settled” special needs trust:

  • Must include a provision repaying the state Medicaid agency for the cost of Title XIX (Medicaid) benefits received by the beneficiary upon the death of the beneficiary.
  • May have significant limitations on the kinds of payments the trustee can make; these limitations will vary significantly from state to state.
  • Will likely require some kind of annual accounting to the state Medicaid agency of trust expenditures.
  • May, if the rules are not followed precisely, result in the beneficiary being deemed to have access to trust assets and/or income, and thereby cost the beneficiary his or her Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid eligibility.
  • Will be taxed as if its contents still belonged to the beneficiary — in other words, as what the tax law calls a “grantor” trust.

By contrast, a “third-party” special needs trust usually:

  • May pay for food and shelter for the beneficiary — though such expenditures may result in a reduction in the beneficiary’s Supplemental Security Income payments for one or more months.
  • Can be distributed to other family members, or even charities, upon the death of the primary beneficiary.
  • May be terminated if the beneficiary improves and no longer requires Supplemental Security Income payments or Medicaid eligibility — with the remaining balance being distributed to the beneficiary.
  • Will not have to account (or at least not have to account so closely) to the state Medicaid agency in order to keep the beneficiary eligible.
  • Will be taxed on its own, and at a higher rate than a self-settled trust — though sometimes it will be taxed to the original grantor, and sometimes it will be entitled to slightly favorable treatment as a “Qualified Disability” trust (what is sometimes called a QDisT).

So what is the difference? It is actually easy to distinguish the two kinds of trusts, though even the names can make it seem more complicated. A self-settled trust is established with money or property that once belonged to the beneficiary. That might include a personal injury settlement, an inheritance, or just accumulated wealth. If the beneficiary had the legal right to the unrestrained use of the money — directly or though a conservator (or guardian of the estate) — then the trust is probably a self-settled trust.

It may be clearer to describe a third-party trust. If the money belonged to someone else, and that person established the trust for the benefit of the person with a disability, then the trust will be a third-party trust. Of course, it also has to qualify as a special needs trust; not all third-party trusts include language that is sufficient to gain such treatment (and there is a little variation by state in this regard, too).

So an inheritance might be a third-party special needs trust — if the person leaving the inheritance set it up in an appropriate manner. If not, and the inheritance was left outright to the beneficiary, then the trust set up by a court, conservator (or guardian of the estate) or family member will probably be a self-settled trust.

That leads to an important point: if the trust is established by a court, by a conservator or guardian, or even by the defendant in a personal injury action, it is still a self-settled trust for Social Security and Medicaid purposes. Each of those entities is acting on behalf of the beneficiary, and so their actions are interpreted as if the beneficiary himself (or herself) established the trust.

Since the rules governing these two kinds of trusts are so different, why didn’t we just use different names for them to start with? Good question. Some did: in some states and laws offices, self-settled special needs trusts are called “supplemental benefits” trusts. Unfortunately, the idea didn’t catch on, and sometimes the same term is used to describe third-party trusts instead. Oops.

We collectively apologize for the confusion. In the meantime, note that the literature about special needs trusts sometimes assumes that you know which kind is being described and discussed, and sometimes even mixes up the two types without clearly distinguishing. Pay close attention to anything you read about special needs trusts to make sure you’re getting the right information.

Want to know more? You might want to sign up for our upcoming “Special Needs Trust School” program. We are offering our next session (to live attendees only) on September 15, 2010. You can call Yvette at our offices (520-622-0400) to reserve a seat.

©2017 Fleming & Curti, PLC